Reply With QuoteWhy am I not amazed?
Phoronix News Bot
Linux Foundation Struggles With Microsoft UEFI Signing
Phoronix: Linux Foundation Struggles With Microsoft UEFI Signing
James Bottomley has written about the problems being faced by the Linux Foundation in having a Microsoft-approved validly-signed UEFI pre-bootloader...
http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTIzMjE
Senior Member
Not one little bit
Why am I not amazed?
Phoronix Member
They treat their customers like shit at the OS level, follows that they would do it at the customer support level too. That's why I'm not amazed anyway.Originally Posted by dimko
Junior Member
I'm not a SecureBoot expert, but doesn't this completely defeat what Microsoft officialy wants to achieve with secureboot?
I.e.: A "hacker" could use that publicly available signed bootloader and use it to preload before Windows and make secureboot completely pointless?
Just asking. Hope someone can clarify this.
Junior Member
And so it begins...
And so it begins... UEFI is unleashed upon the world and the Linux Foundations is having issues with proprietary technologies from Microsoft. The fact the we need a "Microsoft UEFI Signing" process is really sad. One can only guess how much grief this will generate down the road. I'm pessimistic about this one...
Senior Member
Not sure if serious...Silverlight-based file uploader
Senior Member
Same here. I mean, Silverlight is pretty much discontinued, why require it to update the UEFI?
Phoronix Member
I seriously laughed out loud on this part.
Senior Member
EU
EU really needs to something about this.
Silverlight required for the uploader is just icing on the cake, they just made it to fuck with us.
Microsoft even deprecated Silverlight.
Really fucked up that we need the permission of Microsoft to run our system.
SecureBoot is so flawed in everything from its design to implementation.
Phoronix Member
I must fully agree with you here, all this is just grotesque, i can't find another word.
Posting Permissions